BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

205 results for “disallowance”+ Section 53(1)(i)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai4,530Delhi4,000Chennai1,375Bangalore1,367Ahmedabad972Kolkata950Jaipur656Hyderabad656Pune619Indore412Chandigarh371Surat272Raipur241Cochin205Visakhapatnam189Cuttack181Amritsar148Nagpur147Rajkot115Karnataka106Lucknow99Agra95Guwahati85Allahabad70Ranchi63Jodhpur47Calcutta44SC39Dehradun29Varanasi25Telangana23Patna22Panaji18Jabalpur17Kerala3Punjab & Haryana3Orissa2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1J&K1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 14A135Disallowance49Addition to Income44Section 143(3)40Section 25036Section 14736Deduction33Section 15432Section 43B26Exemption

AYUR GREEN AYURVEDA HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED,MALAPPURAM vs. DCIT, CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 565/COCH/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Mar 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. S. Seethalakshmiayurgreen Ayurveda Hospsitals Vs Dcit, Private Limited Cpc, Door No. 1/301 Ayurgreen Bengaluru. Ayurveda Hospitals, Kaladi Mlp Edappal, Malappuram-679585. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaica 4294 M

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 2Section 30Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

53. The distinction between an employer’s contribution which is its primary liability under law – in terms of Section 36(1)(iv), and its liability to deposit amounts received by it or deducted by it (Section 36(1)(va)) is, thus crucial. The former forms part of the employers’ income, and the later retains its character as an income (albeit

Showing 1–20 of 205 · Page 1 of 11

...
24
Section 14823
Section 153A20

AROOR CO-OP URBAN SOCIETY LTD,KOZHIKKODE vs. ITO, KOZHIKKODE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 188/COCH/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shrigeorge George K.And Shrilaxmi Prasad Sahuaroor Co-Operative Urbn Society Dcit, Central Prossing Centre Aroor P.O., Kakkattil 673507 Bangalore Vs.

For Appellant: Shri V.S. Narayanan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80P

section 80P u/s 143(1)(a). The Reserves and provisions created earlier year which was disallowed in the computation of total income in that year reversed and credited to Profit and loss account during the year deducted in the statement of computation during the year should not be added to the total income. It may please be noted that during

MR.THOMAS DANIEL,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ITO, WARD-4, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 68/COCH/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Nov 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. No.68/Coch/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15

Section 194ASection 40Section 44A

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is to be made. In our opinion, the amended provisions of section 40(a)(ia) reads as under: "Section 40(a)(ia) : thirty per cent of any sum payable to a resident on which tax is deductible at source under Chapter XVII-B and such tax has not been deducted

DCIT, TRIVANDRUM vs. BRAHMOS AEROSPACE( THIRUVANANTHAPURAM) LTD, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal filedby

ITA 742/COCH/2019[2002-03]Status: HeardITAT Cochin23 Feb 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ramit Kochar, Am Deputy Commissioner Brahmos Aerospace Of Income Tax, (Thiruvananthapuram) Ltd., Circle-1(1), V. Chackai, Thiruvananthapuram Beach Post, Kerala Tiruvananthapuram, Kerala Pan – Aabck2217K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Smt. Jamunna Devi, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, Adv
Section 139(1)Section 139(3)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 80

53 Taxman 85. The second submission is based on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT [2006] 157 Taxman 1. 11. (A) In Jute Corpn. of India Ltd. (supra) for the assessment year 1974-75 the appellant did not claim any deduction of its liability towards purchase tax under the provisions of the Bengal

M/S.US TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal for assessment year 2011-2012

ITA 134/COCH/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Raghunathan S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri. Santham Bose, CIT-DR
Section 144C(5)Section 190Section 194JSection 234BSection 40Section 92C(3)

section 195(1) of the Act holding that the amounts paid to lead managers and managers were chargeable to tax in India as fees for technical services within the meaning of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. The Appellate Commissioner also upheld the order of the assessing officer. On further appeal before the Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal

M/S.US TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE DCIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal for assessment year 2011-2012

ITA 475/COCH/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Raghunathan S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri. Santham Bose, CIT-DR
Section 144C(5)Section 190Section 194JSection 234BSection 40Section 92C(3)

section 195(1) of the Act holding that the amounts paid to lead managers and managers were chargeable to tax in India as fees for technical services within the meaning of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. The Appellate Commissioner also upheld the order of the assessing officer. On further appeal before the Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal

REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LTD,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly

ITA 267/COCH/2021[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri G. Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 80

disallowing such claims had also taken support from the decision of a Supreme Court, wherein it has been laid down that the Assessing Officer cannot entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by filing a revised return. Since the assessee neither made any such claim in the original return filed under section 139(1), nor in any regular assessment proceedings

REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LTD,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

ITA 268/COCH/2021[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri G. Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 80

disallowing such claims had also taken support from the decision of a Supreme Court, wherein it has been laid down that the Assessing Officer cannot entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by filing a revised return. Since the assessee neither made any such claim in the original return filed under section 139(1), nor in any regular assessment proceedings

REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LTD,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

ITA 270/COCH/2021[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri G. Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 80

disallowing such claims had also taken support from the decision of a Supreme Court, wherein it has been laid down that the Assessing Officer cannot entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by filing a revised return. Since the assessee neither made any such claim in the original return filed under section 139(1), nor in any regular assessment proceedings

REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LTD,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

ITA 271/COCH/2021[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri G. Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 80

disallowing such claims had also taken support from the decision of a Supreme Court, wherein it has been laid down that the Assessing Officer cannot entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by filing a revised return. Since the assessee neither made any such claim in the original return filed under section 139(1), nor in any regular assessment proceedings

REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LTD,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

ITA 269/COCH/2021[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri G. Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 80

disallowing such claims had also taken support from the decision of a Supreme Court, wherein it has been laid down that the Assessing Officer cannot entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by filing a revised return. Since the assessee neither made any such claim in the original return filed under section 139(1), nor in any regular assessment proceedings

M/S.APOLLO TYRES LTD,COCHIN vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, COCHIN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 609/COCH/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 Apollo Tyres Ltd. .......... Appellant 3Rd Floor, Areekal Mansion, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi 682036 [Pan: Aaaca6990Q] Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Kochi ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, Adv. Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 32Section 32(1)(iia)Section 35Section 43(1)Section 92C

1) of the Act. Accordingly, disallowed the claim for allowance as revenue expenditure of pre-operative expenditure ofRs.13,28,53,754/-. iv. Disallowance of excess claim of deduction u/s. 35(2AB) – The appellant company made claim for deduction of Rs. 80,28,91.589/- u/s. 35(2AB) of the Act as against the expenditure certified by DSIR of Rs. 24,53

THE ACIT CIR-1(1), THRISSUR vs. SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD, THRISSUR

In the result, both the appeal filed by the assessee as well as the appeal filed

ITA 219/COCH/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 14ASection 36(1)(viii)

53,09,753/-) during the course of the appeal) claimed in respect of special reserve u/s. 36(1)(viii) of the Act. I.T.A. Nos.215&219/Coch/2018 6. The facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer had disallowed an amount of Rs.10,79,80,515/- being the deduction claimed u/s. 36(1)(viii) of the Act holding that the assessee

SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD,THRISSUR vs. THE ACIT CIR-1(1), THRISSUR

In the result, both the appeal filed by the assessee as well as the appeal filed

ITA 215/COCH/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 14ASection 36(1)(viii)

53,09,753/-) during the course of the appeal) claimed in respect of special reserve u/s. 36(1)(viii) of the Act. I.T.A. Nos.215&219/Coch/2018 6. The facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer had disallowed an amount of Rs.10,79,80,515/- being the deduction claimed u/s. 36(1)(viii) of the Act holding that the assessee

THE DCIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.SFO TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD, ALUVA

In the result, this appeal filed by Revenue in ITA

ITA 402/COCH/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ramit Kochar, Am

For Appellant: Smt. Jamunna Devi, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Anil D. Nair& Smt. Telma
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92C

1,83,55,106/- by the AO by invoking provisions of Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the 1962 Rules, being Rule 8D(2)(ii) and 8D(2)(iii) of the 1962 Rules, which disallowance was later stood deleted by ld. CIT(A). The working of the disallowance of expenditure incurred in relation to earning of an income which

THE DCIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.SFO TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD, ERNAKULAM

In the result, this appeal filed by Revenue in ITA

ITA 401/COCH/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ramit Kochar, Am

For Appellant: Smt. Jamunna Devi, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Anil D. Nair& Smt. Telma
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92C

1,83,55,106/- by the AO by invoking provisions of Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the 1962 Rules, being Rule 8D(2)(ii) and 8D(2)(iii) of the 1962 Rules, which disallowance was later stood deleted by ld. CIT(A). The working of the disallowance of expenditure incurred in relation to earning of an income which

THE DCIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.SFO TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD, ALUVA

In the result, this appeal filed by Revenue in ITA

ITA 403/COCH/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ramit Kochar, Am

For Appellant: Smt. Jamunna Devi, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Anil D. Nair& Smt. Telma
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92C

1,83,55,106/- by the AO by invoking provisions of Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the 1962 Rules, being Rule 8D(2)(ii) and 8D(2)(iii) of the 1962 Rules, which disallowance was later stood deleted by ld. CIT(A). The working of the disallowance of expenditure incurred in relation to earning of an income which

THE DCIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.SFO TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD, ALUVA

In the result, this appeal filed by Revenue in ITA

ITA 400/COCH/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ramit Kochar, Am

For Appellant: Smt. Jamunna Devi, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Anil D. Nair& Smt. Telma
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92C

1,83,55,106/- by the AO by invoking provisions of Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the 1962 Rules, being Rule 8D(2)(ii) and 8D(2)(iii) of the 1962 Rules, which disallowance was later stood deleted by ld. CIT(A). The working of the disallowance of expenditure incurred in relation to earning of an income which

THE DCIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.SFO TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD, ALUVA

In the result, this appeal filed by Revenue in ITA

ITA 404/COCH/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ramit Kochar, Am

For Appellant: Smt. Jamunna Devi, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Anil D. Nair& Smt. Telma
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92C

1,83,55,106/- by the AO by invoking provisions of Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the 1962 Rules, being Rule 8D(2)(ii) and 8D(2)(iii) of the 1962 Rules, which disallowance was later stood deleted by ld. CIT(A). The working of the disallowance of expenditure incurred in relation to earning of an income which

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), THRRISSUR vs. MANJILAS AGRO FOODS PVT. LTD., THRISSUR

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 34/COCH/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Shri C V Varghese, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

53. The distinction between an employer’s contribution which is its primary liability under law – in terms of Section 36(1)(iv), and its liability to deposit amounts received by it or deducted by it (Section 36(1)(va)) is, thus crucial. The former forms part of the employers’ income, and the later retains its character as an income (albeit